Freeholder claims this is not a buildings insurance claim what do you think?

twizzyone

I have been advised to move to this section. Any help is greatly appreciated many thanks

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4424317

First and last post give you the most up to date info and apologies I put leaseholder instead of freeholder in first post !!

dacouch

Summary :

Leak in flat she rents out, freeholder sent out maintenance man who could not find leak.

Tenant reported blocked sink, OP called out Dynarod who plunged the sink and said it was now fine.

Leak through communal light, Dynarod called out who said it was residue of previous leak and will dry out.

Freeholder sent out his maintenance guy who pulled down the ceiling surrounding communal light as it was sopping wet.

Freeholder contacts OP and tells her it's upto her to arrange repairs to ceiling and pay for it.

OP asks freeholder to claim on block building insurance to which freeholder refuses and send the following.

"We would agree completely that it would be inappropriate to have additional "buildings" insurance.
However, I would ask you to consider the following:
The flat above you has a washing machine that leakes over a period of say two weeks whilst you are
on holiday and when you return your kitchen ceilling is damaged to such an extenta that it needs replacing.
Do you think that you would willing to pay for the repairs yourself or would you expect the owner of the
flat above to foot the bill. The buildings insurance would not be involved as it would be up to the two parties to
sort it out between them.
The situation regarding the porch ceilling is effectively no different.
If you have not done so already I would suggest that you speak to The contractors as there should be an element of third party liability cover included in your policy and the cost of the repairs for the porch should
be paid by them."

Also this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4424317

dacouch

This is a good case for Flamecloud to answer.

With regard to the block Building Insurance are you a joint policyholder or an interested party?

Do you have a schedule showing the cover?

Cornucopia

This is a typical Buildings claim within a development of flats (as is the washing machine example the LL gave).

What is the issue, here?

Ultimately, someone needs to fix the ceiling - or has it already been done? Then the LL is holding some costs. He will do one of three things: pay himself, chase you, or claim on the buildings policy. Once he has decided, you can then react. If he invoices you, then you decide how far you want to take it - maybe take legal advice at that stage.

One thought: there is actually a buildings policy in place? Demand to see a copy of the policy documentation.

InsideInsurance

Am I the only one that's lost on all the parties involved here?

From the full explanation there is:
1) a renting tenant
2) the leaseholder of the flat
3) the freeholder of the block
4) the OP

The OP says they are the one renting the flat out to the tenant but refers to the leaseholder as a third party so I am confused if there is a sublease/let involved or what the OPs relation to the property is.


To the original question of holding British Gas/ Dynarod liable, it would firstly depend on which of the two you have the contract with. Presumably we are talking a "home emergency" type policy in which case it would be British Gas. If you were able to prove that they were negligent in their failure to clear the blockage the first time then you may be able to claim the additional damage caused by the extended period of the leak - ie the delta between what repairs were needed already and the repairs needed now.

From what you say the delta would be very small and so you are probably flogging a dead horse as it'll be difficult to prove

By calling professionals out you certainly acted reasonably (I assume it was in a reasonable timeframe both times), it is not your fault professionals failed to clear the blockage. So almost certainly you have no liability nor your tenant who presumably didnt intentionally block the sink.

dacouch

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Am I the only one that's lost on all the parties involved here?

From the full explanation there is:
1) a renting tenant
2) the leaseholder of the flat
3) the freeholder of the block
4) the OP

The OP says they are the one renting the flat out to the tenant but refers to the leaseholder as a third party so I am confused if there is a sublease/let involved or what the OPs relation to the property is.


To the original question of holding British Gas/ Dynarod liable, it would firstly depend on which of the two you have the contract with. Presumably we are talking a "home emergency" type policy in which case it would be British Gas. If you were able to prove that they were negligent in their failure to clear the blockage the first time then you may be able to claim the additional damage caused by the extended period of the leak - ie the delta between what repairs were needed already and the repairs needed now.

From what you say the delta would be very small and so you are probably flogging a dead horse as it'll be difficult to prove

By calling professionals out you certainly acted reasonably (I assume it was in a reasonable timeframe both times), it is not your fault professionals failed to clear the blockage. So almost certainly you have no liability nor your tenant who presumably didnt intentionally block the sink.

Leaseholder is actually the Freeholder, the OP is the Leaseholder who rents out to a tenant

FlameCloud

I dont see why this wouldnt be a buildings claim and for him to say that shows he is either keen to protect the premium he pays or he doesnt understand the function of the insurance.

Given you are on a leasehold for a block of flats and presumably contribute towards the insurance most block polices I've seen either list leaseholders (generally) as an insured party or make specific reference to providing them cover in the actual policy itself. In addition, the lease you have likely forces the freeholder to cover certain perils by a policy.

Alot of the time you can simply bypass the freeholder in any event and claim through the insurer directly- assuming of course that you have their details.

This reminds me of a case a couple of years ago for a escape of water in a flat- completly genuine claim, about £20,000 worth or so. Freeholder was adamant that it wasnt covered as he didnt want the premium loading and the leaseholder wanted it paying. We settled the claim and it is the first an only time I have seen a claim go to the FOS for paying a claim.

dacouch

FlameCloud wrote: »

I dont see why this wouldnt be a buildings claim and for him to say that shows he is either keen to protect the premium he pays or he doesnt understand the function of the insurance.

Given you are on a leasehold for a block of flats and presumably contribute towards the insurance most block polices I've seen either list leaseholders (generally) as an insured party or make specific reference to providing them cover in the actual policy itself. In addition, the lease you have likely forces the freeholder to cover certain perils by a policy.

Alot of the time you can simply bypass the freeholder in any event and claim through the insurer directly- assuming of course that you have their details.

This reminds me of a case a couple of years ago for a escape of water in a flat- completly genuine claim, about £20,000 worth or so. Freeholder was adamant that it wasnt covered as he didnt want the premium loading and the leaseholder wanted it paying. We settled the claim and it is the first an only time I have seen a claim go to the FOS for paying a claim.

Amusingly on the OP's other thread, they were advising her the Building Insurers would claim back any monies paid from the OP (Leaseholder)

twizzyone

New reply from the freeholder, please note it didn't take BG three times to locate leak but twice

First of all please accept my apologies for the delay in coming back to you, this was
a result of referring the matter to the insurers.

My position as managing agent is that I have to be seen to be fair to all the owners of
the flats and ensure that the terms of of the leases are complied with
as far as possible.

The leases are clear and unambiguos in that the state that owners must "keep all water pipes
in the demises premises in good condition and free from any leakage". We have in the past
had two occasions where there was a leak from maisonettes to ground floor flats and we
left it for the two parties to resolve the situation between the two parties.

The situation regarding the leak from your flat is effectively the same except that the leak
damaged the communal area roof below your kitchen.

I understand that you are covered by British Gas- presumeably a Homecare policy- which
as I have indicated previously I would expect to include an element of third party liability
cover.

Our insurers have advised me that British Gas could be deemed to have been negligent in
not locating the leak when it was reported and I understand that it took three visits to remidy
the problem. In the meantime was was continuing to escape with the result that the ceiling
in the porch was irretreveably damaged and now needs replacing.

In view of this, to be fair to all the owners, I feel obliged to recover the cost of the repairs
from British Gas or their contractors, under the right of subrogation and I would once again
request that you let me have your policy number in order that I may discuss this with them.

As an alternative you may have a contents policy in place which would probably include
third party liability cover.

I hope that this clarifies the situation- I would be more than happy to talk it through with
you on the telephone if it would help.

InsideInsurance

So, instruct them to deal with the claim under their insurance party and if their insurers do believe that either BG or your contents insurance may have liability you will support them by providing the policy details and informing the insurers of the incident/ forthcoming claim.

The above is clearly not an admission of liability, just a simple case of providing your insurance details. From a negligence point of view there is almost certainly no liability on you from what you have told us to date. The only possible concern is if there is a contractual obligation that may not have been met in which case neither insurance is likely to provide protection.

As per my previous post, there is possibly some element of BG being partially liable for having failed to deal with the leak on the first visit however it would only be for the additional damage. These sorts of things tend to be much easier dealt with by insurers talking to insurers rather than involving other parties.

I personally suspect that the freeholder/ their agent are not speaking to the actual insurance company claims department but either claiming to or speaking to a broker and/ or sales & service type team who potentially are not fully versed in claims against third parties which is a very different beast than claiming off of your own policy (or selling insurance)

dacouch

Agree with I.I.

What do you mean by contractual obligation.